presents "after words" an hour long program with guest hstso inrvieaus. weteol on "political woman" examing the life of the first female ambassador in the united nation and key member to reagan's foren policy team d discusses the sometimes ntrorsfiwith prsofertda foreign service. ..

and we are very pleased to have him here today. jeane kirkpatrick was a pioneer in many ways. she wa the first american man to be ambassador to th uned on j eor she was a very important political player and post the democratic and the republican party. she was also controversial, it political ideas were often criticized. she would see a nw conservative o wo in end rokwi ovheq b she said -- certainly was an outstanding political figu during the reagan era. so my first question really is, rentotusswritten biographies of gn widodde read this biography of jeane kirkpatrick and maybe if you could say just something about who she was maybe for our younger viewers and listeners

who may not know mucabout her. >> guest:eane s mebo who deabedheel a public thinker, intellectual, public intellectual and in the 1970s she had been a player in the democratic party. she had been disturbed by what had ppened to the demrati rt adeteo ugf ilem within the governing campaign, consolidated under carter. she had been disturbed further, deeply disturbed,by the seeming evidence of america to counter poie endbt er trtham under soviet dominance. and she had been a woman without a party in sme sense, and had catothattention of ronald

reagan and somewhat reluctantly she had met with reagan and decided that he was a man of vigor, a man you know she saw as ar ieohw part ofi the united states, oklahoma and later in illins. people with midwestern virtues, somebody able to you know, p., you know, in a sense quietbut elonta- dendm and not have to explainimself constantly and make decisions. one of the famous things he had said to his foreign-policy adviser that she had heard about was allen who was advising him when heas running for sounonvif i 9 sd agfamously looked up and he said, we win, they lose. how do you like that? jeane heard that and she really

real like that. so she got tknow reagan, who eval became part of his apparatus and she brought with him centrist democrats like yourself who had been alienated by what happens in the democratic party by the radical takeover and the defeatism and appeement mindedness that took ovthe democratipart d ye riemts ilel vigor and intellectual spinal cord to the reagan administration in foreign-policy particularly. and in terms of how i go to know her, or why i write about knerpersonally and i was starting a book publishing company in the late '90s and i thought, jeane kirkpatrick out to write a book. she was i a sense a sensei memory at that point but it was a go em of te m n phalea i d caught -- fought the cold war to

victory and she had been one of the ones who really in some sense put the stake through the soviet heart. so i thought this is a great book. i didn't kowth e at riafshftdwao administration, taking a sizable advance and there in there was something in her, the first person pronoun was an enemy. she couldn't bring herself to the sort of even modest veonrs eon memoir. i talked to her at great length trying to fit -- condenser and she would say yeah i would like to but i ca't. finally i said well, iwill help you. i will do these extensiv wall ayuc u s at iveme in some sense to edit and you can work as an editor of your own life rather than the creator of your own life. and we went alonlike that for you know quite a number of

waene omhefhevtu it and after she died i thought, this was kind of a promise to keep. is a very important life and i did this book to kep er mory osha ce aihe title, the big little life of jeane kirkpatrick. let's go back to her origins because it's very important a value she learned in the american heartland but as you talk about in the book, also also she grew up in a society where the values were very good to ou arcegdand yon om degree or have a career so if you could talk a little bit about her family background and the things that really informed her view of life in the society and politics that she was growing p. >> guest: she was born in duan, a aeram gr h some of the overtones of an edna ferber to fervor model filled with

adventure, land grabs, filling out the great part of wht was first dian teritorynd al vyoou at oues origins, about eating an american in some profound sense, that it was part this american creation that had occurred relatively late in wandco ie.entuwheokhoma d wart a family that were yellow dog democrats and some sense although her mother was very gentile and it refused to allow that term to be used fa, wan oilman and an oil driller, who made a good living for the family but was a sole practitioner and was subjected to the cycles of or itrndd boom and bust ofh

ma tmove away from oklahoma as the oil move towards illinois so to speak. and she was most likely to i'avdrof water.amily. the first grandchild on both des of the family. you know, one of the two leadi studen in her hghcl, ghie, acin very ambitious but she came of age right after the war and there was a sense that you know, even talented girls were supposed to excel an thencome me gmari. she got her father to allow her to a kind of semi-finishing

school after graduating from high school and a place called stephen's coege inissouri which was a two-yearcolle. wupd inwen for you know, the domestic arts as it were, raising a family. she was unwilling to accept that and was part of the contial battle. there was an inedible pride abt her insidehe fily and thr fe t sir heketo all her, going to do? she is not going to have a faly of her own. what does a woman do? and sh acuallwraned gosh nto thhemogeto because she said new york is where big ideas happened and i want to guide yes. >> host: let's talk a little bit about her starting at columbia, the influences on her life. it was there of course that she met hersd,dwcut

patrick who is a major influence on her life in one of the professor she studied with, a great expert on totalitarianism, a refugee himself. if you could talk rally about if you wld like, the wiie a um asn w th fed her views of politics? >> guest: she came there is a very serious student and one of the things that she always said that she first remembered a route being later at coumbia 19 siia campaign. she was a huge minority of t kind of campus where henry wallace and the country club republicans ofouse d sh was re sckh dlr um w eal cause for her, and she loved sherman and i think in some sense she patterned her public life on that. she wanted to be a planspoken,

midwestern american, you o d e mdee intellectual influence of franz nyman who had been, an émigre from nazi germany who have been involved in the vladimir republic. he introdud her in some sense whabecae e preoccupation which is the study of totalitarianism, and he let her see -- he was working even though he was in america i think a an american citizen at ths pnt. waswng wthe effort to democratize germany and helping write the constitution. he had access to a lot of credit papers and he let jeane see papers abut really thenner rk o is wa ocie r thheerll

got over and at the same time she had gotten to know the iseli representative to the ane maes overh there about, learning about the death camps and that sort of thing, all of which had just been bursting into the she bark onrey wh wst americans. i w tdend tarianism and really became almost intellectually obsessed with it. nyman himself is as kind of a soft mrxist, whom she would have been her lar li i tnk itad sio sutb asonnt intellectual, and he took an interest in her. she became kind of a protége of his.

reay inia ro esri intellectual series that made a continental intellectual out of her. all of these influences taken together reallset her on this cose tdtay k totatarianism and of and of course always against the background of americanism. she would say things, jeane would say things that no one else would get away with like i'm passionately in love with thas agaorf terism of america. this was a real intellectual and emotional commment. >> host: maybe we can talk then about when she met herroio ukeirkpatrick and h cr plics,o hubert humphrey and that wing of the democratic party that you alluded to at the beginning

which he began to get involved with a guest as -- i guess as a graduate student. >> guest: after she got her masters deritlde en roughly 1950, her father's patience and supporting her kind of finally ran out. hehad been reassud when she chose political science as her discipline a discipline because youn,a i pse that least. and it seemed to be real and a real discipline. so she had to get a job. she nt dn shonan a e d pursue her ph.d. with nyman on the side. she got an introduction to the state department, largely from pe ro e kitas interviewed by two

st dpant one was herbert von cusa who later became somebody that she loath to because he was an intellectual godfather of the new left in the new left was issu t nve pe anti-americanism and anti-americanism and you know it's kind of revolutionary culture that they had proposed. hit also had anigued b i,th interview with a man named ever in curt patrick who worked inside the stat department opn.hly and in the area publ he a oe world, a man of the full i guess you would

say who had come up out of the midwest as she did, and had been arosorf gornme and unsif mnta while there in the late 30s and had as a student hubert humphrey and he became humpeyentoand timately a eat fi kd bt aoti apparatus there that would become very important in american politics, not only humphrey but friedman who later became governor of minnesota and wa mleth hme junior member tt but with humphrey evren kirkpatrick had really reformed minnesota politics and kickhe counists out ofheemat rt e rl.

heert the oss during world war ii, so we have that experience, and alway had so h mething in jeane andtions hired her and even though there was this age gap and he had been himself married a couple of times already, which she didn't fully know i think, the full story of th. e nts a pl ae showed her her -- one of her first jobs for him was editing some papers and capturing by the nazis from the soetrisers athtn ex oeug. that is another kind of vision of this hell of totalitarianism,

and so you know he introduced her to all these -- it must have been aion a tef oma you know, getting to see all of these. hubert humphrey was senator, living in washington and her anwainwind od hoh swirl. and you know, i think it must have been hugely exciting and she was bowled over by him really and fell in love with him. thintht makenectly theort of lwaali to do. i mean, the contrarian experience of her life and that caused her lots of you know, doubt and pa i think. d sh ind of ata o inhiperanll

relationship, she looked for a way out, trying to find her way, not to have to embrace what was clearly her destiny, you know, too nck ohethisa. french equivalent of a fulbright and went over there and became a francophile and had a very interesting experience, got to know ver mrll sy ienby him. but in some sense her mentor, her destiny and he and away after she was there for a year or so came and got her and brought hehome and married her. coter d., she had three children in very quick succession. she was then given -- she was at georgetown university and i got the government

dertment to teaca variety of pocshembf ruding psonitin tian as very insistent that her schedule be that of any other professor and in fact the fact that she had three young children shoulmake no difrence and you cite that in the book. and was whileshe as wrh article, the double standard which really came to the attention orwas brought to the attention of ronald reagan and really then catapulted her intohese republican rcles although of coursee ul b mt. th numth was that right-wing totalitarian regimes were capable of change but left-wing or authoritarian regimes were not. so if he gets a little bit more maybe about that nhow e th met gcu essuit m ue well, jeane during

the 50s and early 60's have been under t influence of her husband. he was always a great believer in her andedin se bu s of a pygmalion molding her. this preoccupation was about communist extortion. a -- subversion. he thoughtara -cni bam but in a sense gave jeane a private tutorial about communism and you know being part of the oss in the cia, he knew lot of the inside people, you know ranging si k to you know, former communists whom he brought home at the dinner tabl and jeane would cook these wonderful french meals and they talk about what it was like to live under communism.

so s brohtse eoatn kirk also pushed her into the democratic party activism. she had the democratic party in her dna. she later on said i was one of thmoicrin w meul say something is the father of her children. it was that important to her. kirk had alwaykind of pushed her. she was real relucnt. there was a fear of yinghere chen tt rtftngvi deatwa t a mother. a pushed her towards the public arena and he had gotten her to write speeches for humphrey. in his 1960 pesidential caaignnd a6ce idalccfu mp,avin968 which

was, again, she felt it was his chance, humphrey's chance and she felt subverted by the things that happened both nsi and ouide e von in erpthing her and she was involved with the humphrey apparatus to such a degree that you know, when onumy' atpt to7derailed not become president of the united states, but also embrace the values that have been outside the convention in968 and brought hiinside thear. rers in 1972 she really felt she had to take flig in some sense. so wet that point it was no longer curt pushing her. she was a full-fledged public intellectual. she started wring her aswe way kept one

foot in the academy and loved being a teacher and thought of herself as a teacher above all things. but she began edging into this public realm, the public realm of the dialogue about wha democracy wasihrit s w, whether the american democratic example was not only viable but morally worthy. all these questions she kept framing through this hostile he.eoverf thdemocratic e tad elements, and she helped form an organization, the dissident centrist democrats who felt they veart work with the ahomen centrist values in the period between 1972 and the ascension

of jimmy carter in 1976. and you know, a lot of those centrist democratse ih ppd eri 76. he would be able to right the ship of the democratic party and believed he was a centrist jeane was pvately very skepcal ouat b wilng kinof l thegoad it d you ow, then carter was mcgovern was a magnolia accent, you know? she saw the dominos start to 19shs lldgg this time and b poon carter and what she saw as carter is some, that appeasement and particularly crucial in this respect in 1979. she saw the fall of the show and hed lee her.,a cu

that have been caused by this failure ofill, a failure to love america and not to see that weern ves our te etead ker entan countries in the horn of africa to central america, and in the summer of 79, she went to france and she and kirk always did. dotu taid the heck with this. i'm going to write an article about all these things that are bothered me about jimmy carter and about appeasement and supporting not onlyakid ab tanst actually supported -- suporting the sandinista front of. she wrote this article and it

argued basically thetakeway hegnt m opashorieg il bad our permeable to change. but totalitarian regimes do not change because theyseek not just to control the political dialogue but heyk toemake the wma,in er aspect of human existence, the personal, the family, the home and so, she made the argument that you know, that we should take intaccot ch authoritarian governments can in fact over time change and you know, these are the governments that we have seen under carter to be stabilizing ad demanding. what happens is eychge gh teyom tariovenha ve change.

now that is kind of the dictatorship part of that discussion, the double standard which people pay less attention to at the time but which was somethinthat was profoundly important to hr mpha wreng this, under carter, she would make these incredibly harsh demands for openness and transparency and democratic nigud meanwhile, say absolutely nothing about these totalitarian regimes particularly the soviet union. under carter, she felt that the carteradmnistti perfectly morally blind in his abity to talk to the soviet union and kind of cozy up to them and kind of agree with the preposteus in her mind

assumpon hhe ind in ug e hm doerre oceral, that is free speecand stuff like that and they were no more valuable than what the soviets countered with which was freedom of education, freedom of housing, freedom of you know, lnuttion thinhaaary e et o bl ovevhoth plan to support them. and so she wrote this piece and it appeared in the "commentary" magazine. it was pretty much an overnight sensatio groups were churning out 10,000 piesndmlito insthirtf ite heenof reagan. this man, richard allen who was at that time the foreign-policy adviser when he was campaigning, and reagan was bowled over by it m. s i think the moral simplicity of it, that is the

moral frankness of it more than he saw the moral complexity of it let's say but nonetheles immediately ranged ameeting li sof.s ws doknnyubns would say in that and that sort of thing. and nonetheless, there was an imdiate kindling between these two people. i mean it waspolitical love at jeaclycbkdtrely. kind of, the day after having this dinner t george will's house with him a then later on after dinner,involvg pop shlkbondy aann wich t. these are right-wing republican. the gene but jean had done her homework and a man named jess unger who was the big daddy of

moicoieu r aire aheak the house of representatives in california. he said look, i oppose the guy but he has been an honorablean seslsody y o to kets. wi reagan. >> host: peter collier is the author o"political woman" the big little life of jeane kirkpatrick. reagan is elected and jeane is ofd and takes a joof tossad te iat both in u.s. policy in august lee and her own political career. now she was rather embattled as u.n. ambassado she was in battle with the united nations, the ureaucracy and the hypocry that chain unte she allyid rarits bureaucracy. is quite hypocritical particularly on the issues of israel in which he felt quite

fervently but other issues too. than she was of course also embattled with her state department, whereh r pl thtn've her. they insisted that she could not clear her talking points before she made speeches so she was babbling on at least two friends. how did she de with all of this? >> guest: well i think it wa ns etior. ewinhosfo sense of a citizen olitician. she was somebody who kind of came out of private life and always left part of herself there and was never comfortable with the crutiny, that leadi. shtrietotati rymsy guess, toward particularly the end part of her tenure ithe reagan administration. first of all, she was, s was a woman and e w

wi cal m, and the second wave feminists really hated her because she was involved with reagan but she thought she was a legitimate feminist and they were illegitimate feminists to kind ofrelied on a moment to do the thgs that shhad on a sorti. shs always relly hurts even though she was bitter and denunciations of them that they did not accept her and see her for what she was, which is one of those role models they were always looking for for shsag n bh both. who didn't have y children said, of me, i'm a woman without a. according to jeane and gloria steinem calls me a femal imon. co'tiet. d u know, shwas always a kind of woman in the reagan administration. she had a national security

meeting and all of these power fires th tir wer esn shsains eu shug a mouse creep across the floor and she said, at that point, i thought to myself, that miles has as much right in a sense to be herea uch power ane trd woman, you know, in the early days at the u.n. by these diplomats but quickly with her wit and her unspoken is, ospoken this or teturihee meef. e sa re ce at them with everything she had and she was pretty witty. she would say things like you know, shewould ll- dae heipts u md said you know,

the u.n. is the world in microcosm and she said you know, kind of a wc fields of side she said in my worst moments i fear that this is dew. d aanis th asuserery ws stones. she was a scholar. her first impulse and her first inecaest s to try too berogressively enfeebled, where she fe there was a kick me sign on the back of the u.s. delegation by the time she got there. the u.s. was isolated. conty the soviet lock and by the other blocks that had arisen in the u.n.. the u.n. had changed in the time since you know, not only it was founded it certainly sends the

60's a ri o cozafr 5 or 60 nations and was now 160 in these new nations. they were on powerful underage, you know, i'm important except in the u.n.ndt ed ese lis th.sa e cryngh el dt a lock. even the europeans with him jeane found herself often in contention had kind of a weak block of their own. outo e uanigur fee participant in the u.n. and she said, you know, look, we have to practice politics. we have to make there be consequences for opping this rather than just kinof exept e youno opay thi rllet f steam here.

she said this is not a turkish bath. this is their world organization, and so she insisted that theree a latishipoitae between opposing the united states just out of allegiance to block loyalty and bilateral relations. we couldn't just oppose the u.s. in her opion and inueo thweonenfontsf ad sh said, i want this organization to work like chicago politics works. i want the u.s. delegation to work like chicago politics. she had mimeographed picture rrdey h sto ndaer omin u ion there, you are supposed to act like a politician here. you are supposed to make things count. and you know there were things

that she particurl w waesoiet bloc and its concept of maneuvering their bad was the object of her wrath. but as you mentioned, israel for instance, shsaw the double stanrdat she hadlways talk abo inrfh me oher 79 article. and she saw them as very much a fact gang israel. i mean the arab and the afrin coorin ak inanceould raumitily and in return the arabs would you no, get the support of the africans by agreeing go with them on afnsuo tn sund arabs.

so that the objective always was to isolate and make pariah state out of israel and she wasn't having any of it. she hado irstak t u.s gaot . educe th in r opion about the importance of israel as a kind of democracy and a democracy in this vast dert of despotisand ddle s aasshihas ry important to her. she made a very conscious effort to rehabilitate israel and to defend israel,nd tn of courhentdo know, use the growing moral clout she had and growing political effectiveness that she had yonowtackhe siet ui

pue etun h inatise h gre accomplishment is for the soviet union, for the first time, a on the defensive in the u.n.. >> host: now we arecoming up on the 30th aniversary of the jes lands warnd bni -

deed trk s lt that he was intellectually squishy and that they falklands, the falklands situation was one place i thk were ana e, r orind shdidn suprt the argentine ian government, but she quote unquote understood it. a i think her ision of the world and of the oldwaanof

e liite et t befern th sens and that she said you knowthey don't support us. why should we rush to their defens and sesa ynohe nt government, while it is an authoritarian government, it is one that we have been ble to count on and have been training in the early stages not only supporting but actually niragua whch e sains of raastgrtsiamese causes of nicaragua and el salvador as the great contest in the united states. if icould not prevail on the one hand and in promoting and keeping awekerati saor oe end in isolating expansionist marxist government in nicaragua, if it couldn't do that, our

goose was cooked. the argentines had been very grto dby w and s sheaw ts argentines you know, in terms of this cold war campus against which he projected everything. real f thwarted thev argentines overtly, but she allowed herself to be sort of symbolically used by them and e sort of thing. the irony of the whole back-and-forthetwe hernd e thmira is i that hague really overreached in this argentine thing. he saw this as a moment to really defeat jee once and for all because her sympathy as he saw it for thent, d u he basically, you know,

tried to maneuver arounder and tried to use her in a power struggle with reagan over who was gog to control things. and ily w,er s mt e wa ded to abstain, even though she didn't want to, in a vote about ineffect, censuring argentina d had to cnge r mo o hague's part. anyway the end result of it was that hague said she has got to go or i've got to to go in reagan said well you have got to go. and so the irony was, i think that jeane was llyron eldsont rio dee of britain quickly. although, she would later on point out you know, they didn't support us in granada so why should i?

but shere ykn,e bee e s in effect fired. he was fired and she emerged as the power in foreign affai in the u.s. government. >> host: she obviously was a inr ev thohs dn political liha nas se do something in her second term? there were all kinds of questions about what high political office she might've gotten. what happened there? >> guest: well shereally shnto bedthhe wanted t b -- ti sit council. and she really wanted that job and had backing from people like phil casey and cap weinberger but george shult wh was e nesecrary state wasery ch ainstnm m usitj era ik deaver and others and really blocked her.

so it was kind of a melancholy moment for her and reagan both when they -- reg and deerately fi onoth j tstle arod an that had no substantial power. so she left and this is after she agreed to stay through 1984 election in which she really establishederself. e aly bld rs e esi e eiol in 1984 yeah, the republican convention and 84 is very memorable speech, which ptedt cen a really was the political speech of the season, she became you know in some sense a national figure and you know a very very attractive one. bld isfoo a since she had bee

tif ea power and the international security council, it was time for her to leave and explore her options. one of the things in doing this book that actually surprised me is how much of you kw aind crityhehc as it worked out, when she lifted the administration, this absolute day luge of ofers by syndicated columns for books, for speang in gauge meant. shewould me wllov llorsear ref life. that is not counting the ones she did for support groups and republican party candidates for free. soshe was off on her own at thatointan tee l foblffd there was a very serious jeane per -- for president movement in

1988. and it's an interesting kind of substory about how sheey d,n a wno, e dnule ge that. not because she couldn't win, although she probably couldn't have one denomination but because there was just something. she told this -- it waso shld s often about while she was being courted to run and fund-raisers were lining up and political support was nding up, she was driving from her maryland home into washington one day andulled up ne totwowhs suburban sedan with little children ithe back and she was trying to deal with the children and trying to rive. jeane said, just looked at them is rt?though are women really

ve tin ie e background? it was kind of one of these moments where she just blanked. >> host: she obviously was someone who believed and in r life practice th you cou sasftso iwy and also be a very s tk eoow after that and she became active in the department. she had a position with the american enterprise institute, and then you get to period where gorbachev comes to power and ingstatueloin errondimy e etun.

that was the fever chart of her inability to really understand that the soviet union was on its way down and you know, the things that she and reagan had donetogether had precipitated risth they do now had sought. she couldn't believe it because you know she was well schooled in marxist leninist theory and practice so she saw this gornment aai vi stend a re, could be argued that gorbachev was reagan's creation anyway, that he was a desperate attempt on the part of the soviet system to withstand disorder fre armoan teraanmlornt oree t

reagan term. jeane saw him as a sinister leninist figure who was tring to rehabilitate and modeize the leninist system and th s kind of ckedff ft. e tssn and was very kind of charmed by him in a funny sort of way as well as affirmed by sakharov and all these dissidents he came running up to her and said oh thank, k . niswn every criminal, poitical criminal in the gulag and thank you for all you have done chu is affirmed by l the sstsn al thespeop havbeen is ieub also charmed by gorbachev. she just couldn't get it into her mind that, and she kept thinking that you know, the hardliners would reassert themselves.

diearohiryokfu jwhe suddenly arose in the gorbachev era as a possible sort of you know, kind of returto communism. she was sure he would win. it wasn't until t soviets i asec admitted you know the truth about the massacre that she thought okay, big jig is really appear. it is a step to mit that you know himasacrhadccd us sais ey'tndk that. she began to finally come and she didn't believe in this notion the neocons were promoting, the nt generation of neocons were promoting about the end of history he th hryldev unshw te state -- stake driven to the hearof the

communist party. >> host: and so come he does just mentioned a second wave of neoconservatives. in the bush of administration enltteheieior, she thenihe lld. haokither former colleagues, her intellectual soulmates over the war in iraq and what followed from that. why would she do that? why was she opposed at? guest:i o inkhat shs ocrve he. sense that irving crystal had been a neoconservative. to jeane it was kind of the landing place for libels like herself, who had bee ejeed by thmoic party. lira she had never fully -- a part of her had been suspicious of democry promotion as a soliry end of

fon-cystcy sndm us the metaphor, after she finally it endethat the soviet empire was done for, it's like a rubber band that has been stretched and kind of snapping back. e kind of snapped back in and itricabaoal waswe,a se trw. n'vebe on war footing all the time. having this normal sense of localization and the cultural and intellectual and political sphere, we can bea normal country but of course th nes,erve2.0 is people call it said come on, they're still there is still work to do. there is democracy to be promoted all over the world and america will never be safe until the democracy is as a given ct. ane was very sicfh alesttruar that occurred after the first

gulf war, which he did support although a little bit relucttly. haiti andmal, h sa thi anatfoe o ua hel iow d military. she was very skeptical about it and so by the time iraq two cos along, she is really not on board. she was a good soler for a moment or two. she agreed when e bush of this raon ed r g ga ar a u.n. delegation and explained and you know certain aspects of the u.s. position. she didn't explain he ia of mp wre s futodoha sdid explain why saddam's regime was in violation of the u.n. agreements and why it deserved to come down for those reasons. whe shdidthasomeat

bee just seemed to be the final one of these kind of brushfire type mini-wars although it became a mxi w atas -d that sort of thing. she held her peace publicly. it wasn't until she publied her book and it was published posting mostly aer her death and 2006, wheresll did ex o her doubts about this enterprise. >> host: we have just a few minutes [what do you think the legacy will be? what do you think people in 10 or 20 years time will remember about her or se rmta st a foeign-policy? >> guest: well, for one thing it's never going to be possible,

however beck's the u.s. role in the u.n. iowmuhe s.tpl ort of complicated political game there, involving compromise in the sort of thing. i don't think you'll ever be possible any longer to -- anngm these third worldin locks and islamic blogs and this sort o thing and to take a position of apologizing constantly. that is over. anthnor legacy, you know, continuing the way she built the land bridge from the this sort of degraded demoatic ral tkeryoow

blism based on a firm's sort of patriotism, it wasn't loud or udmouths, but it was an unyielding a lin esiaod a poceamic d hk,ne ultimately -- i did a book once and i was fortunate enough to put do a book about medal of honor recipients and i got to interview a numbero af rpi. ir i always room for this guy, john hawke for a one-man battle and that t laws pocket, a very ulteas herself.ry midwestern and was talking to them about what he had done. he said look, when it comes down to what i did it's ve simple.

i came wen mcouny caed d i did te esti cod. i k ieki o at ane did. >> host: thank you very much, peter collier author of "political woman" the big little life of jeane kirkpatric >> guest: thank yu. >>hat was after words booktv signature program in which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, pubc policymakers, legislors and others familiar with there've material. after words airs every wek an an:0m.n monday. you can also watch after words on line. go tobooktv.org and click on after words in the bookt series and topics list on the upper right-hand side of the page.